paxcoder

Linus' rudeness is not culture but an abandonement thereof. For being influential he should only be held to a higher standard. His bad example should certainly not be followed. Sincerely, your friendly non-native English co-speaker.

I think you were thinking of anencephaly. But I disagree. Likewise for the comatose. Ask the guy pronounced brain dead by four doctors.

Logged in to upvote your comment, hopefully you won't be disuaded by downvotes. Maybe this whole "deal with my being unpleasant" thing stems from people seeking to justify their unwilingness or inability to practice self-control. Whatever the reason it is detrimental and worthy of being opposed to. It's one thing to be unpleasant to people who are obstinate. It's another to be unpleasant to people who are ignorant. And yet another to be rude to people who you simply disagree with.

I guess it's time again to spend some points. Killing/euthanizing people in any stage of development or condition is murder.

For the record, I disagree with this. You only need to check the implementation if you're straying from the standard or the compiler is. Neither should be... standard.

Actually, since C99, sizeof char is defined to be 1 (byte). The number of bits in a byte is implementation-defined.

However, "it's implementation specific and it's most probably this, or that if you use such and such a compiler flag" is different from "I don't know".

As a rule of thumb, don't assume things about C's abstractions, read the standard instead, or ask friendly humans who do if they check out.

Are you saying you use Apple's products for privacy reasons?

I think they're evading the question.

For the operating system makers?

>native presentation layer built on WebAssembly

Is your prediction that companies will start compiling their UI toolkits for browsers?

What is FirefoxOS' way of doing things, and why is it (in your opinion) wrong?

Took a look at the github page. Sounds really impressive, lads. I only wish it were a microkernel and licensed with an 'or later'. In fact, given how well copyleft works for system software, I'd consider AGPL. Anyway, it definitely deserves a closer look.

The fact that copyleft only kicks in when derivatives are distributed(GPL) or served(AGPL) indeed renders unviable selling copies of software. But I don't see how you could enable usage licensing without compromising most user "freedoms". This is certainly what "OSS-NC" would do, in contrast to even AGPL's copyleft. Instead, I think we would do better shifting the paradigm to the "pay per patch" model.

>"OSS"-NC

would be proprietary software you don't have to reverse engineer

>[AGPL + another] still allows any 'customer' to use your software for commercial work without contributing anything back other than attribution

How so?

Please someone figure out how to use Web APIs with Web Assembly so we can finally move away from EcmaScript's madness

Not sure, they did this on company time, and acting on their behalf.

ASLv2 is compatible with GPLv3 (works under ASLv2 can be inorporated into GPLv3), but not vice versa. This is because GPL has (arguably useful) restrictions which ASL does not. A common goal of ASLv2 and GPLv3 is the restriction on patents, which makes them both incompatible with GPLv2. This is an important difference which makes GPLv3 a superior freedom-preserving license to v2, and the resulting incompatibility is not a matter of interpretation - you can't downgrade licenses. It is unfortunate that Linux was not licensed as GPLv2 or later which is, alongside Linus' support for TiVoization(DrM) and the corporate lawyers' spreading of FUD, the reason why we're still forced to discuss GPLv2.

GPLv3 has a framework for exceptions built-in. Apache 2.0 supposes no exceptions. The question is why FSF/SFLC thought it insufficient to simply enumerate the exceptions alongside the license.

Derivatives fall under the same copyright (unless fair use applies). You can't copyright ideas though.

You do have automatic copyright on things you create under the Berne convention.

I reckon people find it uninformative. If not, then I'd guess the exact opposite. You should know which.

Now that I have read your last comment, trolled is unfortunately an apt description of how I feel.

You removed the modifiers when you were paraphrasing.

Obviously to explain was my exact intention, which is why I provided several arguments to your one.

Honestly, I find your first sentence hard to believe.

You're forcing me to respond. You can't just remove my modifiers and then claim "heavy accusations". Note also the irony of supposing someone's state of mind while advocating proof.

You've already shared your opinion on the past tense and I've disagreed. I'll add to that the use of third person instead of the first. Hopefully this will be my last referral to the OC.

I'm simply claiming that it is probable that it was an attempt at manipulation and that my reaction had reason and purpose outweighing it's "harshness".

I did consider it, as evidenced by the words "seems" and "might". As for typo - it was not it, absolutely. Note that this fact doesn't necessarily imply dishonesty, but it is a possibility. This other comment was harsher indeed but likewise for a reason. The way I see it, it seems probable that OP was deceptive and my intention was to call them out in case it was. I'm still unconvinced by the excuse. Your suggestion of how I should have handled it is exactly the option I considered inadequate. I've addressed the last sentence and don't care to address the original comment yet again. This is one of the longest threads I've been a party to on here, and no offense to you, but I'm not sure it was worth it.

EDIT: Admittedly I did assert there was a theme.

I never denied that I have made an implication. I believe I had better grounds for it (or I wouldn't have invested time in checking the project's state in the first place), provided a clearer point for OP to counter, and that that my tone was not as provokative.

If you can imagine a more tactful yet still effective alternative deterrent, I'm open to suggestions. I don't believe that just pointing out the fact of the use of the inappropriate tense would have been enough.

It might have been clear had it been used to set the tone. But used like this I think it deserves criticism whether intentional or not.

While I certainly can be be wrong, I also wasn't assured it wasn't intentional by the way it was explained. I suggest we all mind phrasing and get along this way.

P.S. I don't find it gracious of you to imply that I might be a lying cheat.

It's not a typo, it's a theme driven home by your last sentence.

You used past tense in talking about a project last committed to less than 3 days ago. I have no horse in this race but it seems to me like you might.

>You are testing your archives anyway, right? ;-)

Umm no, I handle errors which I expect to be reported to me.